I went to Rachel Maddow’s blog to praise her work on the Sherrod incident and watched this video
Rachel crystalizes what I’ve been trying to express in some of the GD political threads.
Our focus is being misdirected to sensationalized stories with just passing reference to the stories that actually have a major impact on the lives of the American public. In the midst of a list of very serious problems we find ourselves having far to few informative sources that actually serve to educate the public in a realsitic way on what this administration is doing.
It’s a failure on the part of the WH to be more assertive about what they are doing and why. Obama promised to work toward openness and we need that in order to have more informed discussions about the things that have a far reaching effect.
Even though I lean to the left I firmly believe we need the balance of serious informed views from conservatives and liberals having honest discussions about the wellfare and future of this country.Instead we successfully, repeatedly sidetracked by fleeting sensationalism.
I realize the general public is not going to have in depth discussions on a wide spectrum of issues, but surely we can at least try to focus on more relevant issues as elections appraoch and make it a point to discourage the sensationalized distractions.
The WH needs to be much more assertive in presenting those things they feel are serious accomplishments and making sure the public knows what is happening. We need leadership that reminds us not to be easily sidetracked on the story of the week. In a “ask what you can do for your country” way we need to be reminded that our problems are very serious and we need to be involved and as informed as possible.
We also need some reliable media sources who regardless of thier leaning left or right, have some integrity and a dedication to the truth. I’d like to see more depth in the discussions of legislation.
So, is the Obama Paradox legitimate in saying he has actually accomplished quite a bit and the powers against him have successfully distracted the general public
and, what can we do to turn this around and bring the focus back to relevant issues?
The President isn’t about to start a weekly Mr. Rogers sort of show where he gets out a chalk board and explains what he’s about and why while singing cheery songs. While it might be a good thing if he did, no one would watch.
Ultimately, it’s the duty of the individual and the press to get the information that needs to be known out there, but the individual isn’t really interested and will choose to buy the newspaper from the news outlet that sells him a load of bull, not the one which tries to educate him. Previous to the internet, newspapers had enough money coming in that they could afford to give their journalists some freedom to give in-depth reports and not have to worry about going out of business. These days, to stay afloat in the news world, you have to pander to the customer.
There’s a lot more information available on the internet than we could ever have hoped for previous to the internet, on the other hand, so people who do want to educate themselves are much more able to do that than they were before. But that’s a very small minority.
I’m really not sure what the solution is. Setting up a tax that went towards supporting news agencies might help.
I sure hope that’s true . In the video it was mentioned that as 2012 gets closer there will be an opportunity to highlight actual accomplishments. I’d encourage any Dems running this year to do the same.
Aside from the hype and distortions, here’s what’s actually been done.
I don’t expect and wouldn’t want Obama to get down in the trenches on bullshit stories. In the Sherrod incident he just acknowledged how the media has warped reality and talked about a change. What I’d like to see is a repeated message that reminds and encourages us to do a little research, not be distracted by sensationalism when it comes to the legislation that affects our future. This might be accomplished by the press secretary steering the time toward important issues and asking the press to focus on the real meat of what affects the general public. This might be accomplished by often mentioning a website that contains the details we need to know. I wouldn’t even mind seeing a “story of the week” section that calming points out the distractions and distortions, but maybe that needs to be done by folks like Maddow.
For many of the real Liberals the problem is not the programs he started, like heath care and the financial regulation. It is that he did not fight hard enough, that he did not use his pulpit ,to push for clean bills. The companies that make money off them were able to water the bills down way too much. Then his stubbornness in keeping Geithner and his staff, who often work for Goldman over the people , is problematic.
So on one hand, I like that they got a health bill through. I dislike that the healthcare companies are still on top of the money chain.
I like that the financial regulation came through. I dislike that it did not go far enough.
So the lefties are disappointed that while the problems were addressed, they were not solved.
The problem with aiming at single voters is the rational ignorance problem: people generally realize that a single vote won’t swing an election, so they pick political views that align with those around them and make them look like good people.
What might work is putting more pressure on media institutions whenever a sensationalist story comes up, hoping to swing public opinion against spending a lot of time on those issues. But of course sensationalism benefits Obama about as often as it hurts him, so he’s more likely to be calculating about when to really push this message. It’s silly to expect politicians to act solely in the public interest, including when it hurts them.
I understand that. It maybe because I’m in my 50s now that I’m not as outraged. The changes have to come gradually if we have the will to continue to pay attention and push. Keep the duscussions alive and relevant. The nature of the American public is that when times are good we tend to abdicate our responsibilities as citizens rather than keep an eye on those in charge. There will never be permenant solutions. That’s not how our system works.
We may be disappointed that Obama didn’t go as far as we wanted him to but is he still our best chance of progress or not. If he is , we keep slugging away and don’t lose the seat to someone else over that disappointment. We especially don’t give it up to shoddy transparent political hackery.
There’s no reason to think that even if everyone loved every bill passed in Congress that Obama’s job approval would be higher.
The popularity of the President, and his party, is only marginally affected by legislative accomplishments. Even for those people who don’t believe the economy drives approval, the other big factors are scandals and crises, not legislative accomplishments. Unemployment is above 9% and we’re fighting and dying in two foreign wars. Obama could personally invent and distribute magic fairy dust that would make your teeth whiter and your spouse prettier, but his approval would have been whittled down over these two years.
Many Conservative commentators said Obama’s approval rating would plummet below 50% in his first year because of the stimulus and other policies – by his first summer even! They were wrong then for the same reason Liberals are wrong now: the arc of his approval is the rate at which he begins to own the economic situation, not what happens in Washington DC.
Let’s also keep some perspective. Obama won the 2008 election with 53% of the vote. Now, about 45% approve of his work. Meanwhile, even fewer people identify as Republicans than two years ago. And even though there are 69 Democratic House incumbents in districts that are majority-Republican, the best-case scenario for the Republicans is that they win back a little over half of those.
I agree it’s totally unrealsitic to expect the general public to be well informed on all the issues. Im suggested they be reminded to spend a certain portion of thier time seeking facts of sensationalism and distortions. Avoid the knee jerk reaction to the story of the week. If there is a particular subject that interests you ,an issue you care about then focus on that one. I’m suggesting that by repetition and a modecum of perserverence we alter the general publics focus over time.
I also agree that we need to promote a change in the media. THat won’t be easy because it’s a business and they have every right to pursue profit. I would applaud those who do real investigative journalism. On some level the public has to help sway a change in media by communicating with them and choosing honesty and accurate information over sensationalism.
For reference concerning Obama’s accomplishments, here’s a blogger’s list from November 2009, and an update posted just yesterday from the same guy.
Whether one considers these things good or bad, they are definitely substantial. The Obama administration has a huge number of legislative accomplishments. Certainly puts the lie to the “empty suit” inanity.
and there you have a concise point that needs to be repeated often. Discuss the issues and the details and disagree if you like. but don’t accept the BS memes . That goes for any political persuasion
He has a minor crisis going on now. Elizabeth Warren has been pushed to head the new consumer protection agency. She warned of the bank melt down before it happened. She has been interviewed several times by congressional and senate committees. She seems to be for the people against the banks. She is very qualified.
Geithner does not want her . He works for the bankers . If he keeps her from getting the position ,it will be a blow for all of us.
I suspect Obama will not put her in.
I think part of it is that people haven’t seen a big improvement in their day to day lives. People are still facing 10% unemployment rates, 16-20% underemployment rates and are being asked to shoulder more work for less pay. The economy is still collapsed.
The job hemmoraging did stop, but we aren’t gaining jobs yet. I don’t know why Obama and the stimulus do not get credit for stopping the job losses.
As far as health reform, it’ll be years and years before the benefits trickle down to people. Most people probably won’t notice any difference under the reforms. If they do (due to programs designed to lower costs) it’ll be 10+ years before that happens.
Obama has kept many of the promises he made during campaigning.
So I think Obama is leading with the goal of creating a US that is more sustainable and functioning 10+ years down the road. Health reform, energy reform, financial reform, etc. These are designed to benefit society far down the line. So it is hard to get credit for those things because most people don’t see immediate changes in their day to day life.
Other things he has done which show immediate benefit (UI extensions, COBRA subsidies, middle class tax cuts) are there, but I don’t know if anyone aside from the destitute or unemployed are noticing them. And that can be used as a class war division by the GOP, claiming Obama looks out for the poor but not the middle class.
I wonder if part of why he isn’t getting credit is many people (especially liberals like myself) have had it drilled into us that the democrats are spineless and disorganized compared to the GOP (which has almost military like discipline). So the concept that the dems accomplished a long list of things is somewhat hard to believe at first.
Many of us have been told again and again that 1 or 2 conservative democrats in the senate can block anything/everything they want due to abuse of the filibuster. So the concept that the 111th congress actually got many good laws through is hard to believe.
